The Resolution on Syria Is Very Broad, Likely Won’t Pass In Current Form

The draft language for authorizing force that Mr. Obama has sent to Congress is too narrowly drawn as a response to WMD. Congress should broaden it to give the President more ability to respond to reprisals, support the Syrian opposition and assist our allies if they are attacked.

If hawks want to ensure that the Syria resolution is defeated, by all means let Congress broaden it even more to make it that much more unacceptable to both houses. In that case, instead of losing by a few votes it can be overwhelmingly rejected. The resolution is already written in such a way that Obama would be authorized to wage a much larger war in Syria and potentially in other countries if he wished to, and he could continue ordering attacks for as long as the “conflict in Syria” continued. Jack Goldsmith explains:

It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes. First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war [bold mine-DL].). Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.” Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”). Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

As it is currently written, the resolution likely wouldn’t pass because it requests authorization for what could potentially be much more than a few “limited” strikes. If this resolution passed, Congress would be effectively signing off on U.S. strikes against targets both in and outside of Syria for as long as the war in Syria lasts. That isn’t what the administration claims that it wants to do, but why would anyone take their word for it? The Post reports on Congressional resistance to the current resolution:

Leading lawmakers dealt bipartisan rejection Sunday to President Obama’s request to strike Syrian military targets, saying the best hope for congressional approval would be to narrow the scope of the resolution.

From the Democratic dean of the Senate to tea party Republicans in their second terms, lawmakers said the White House’s initial request to use force against Syria will be rewritten in the coming days to try to shore up support in a skeptical Congress. But some veteran lawmakers expressed doubt that even the new use-of-force resolution would win approval, particularly in the House.

If there are real doubts that even a narrowly-worded resolution could pass, that suggests that an attack on Syria would be blocked by Congress, wouldn’t it? After all, Obama wouldn’t be crazy enough to launch attacks on Syria after Congress has said no, right? Not according to John Kerry:

A day after Barack Obama vowed to put any intervention in Syria to a vote of both the Senate and House of Representatives, Kerry said the administration was confident of winning a motion of the kind that David Cameron unexpectedly lost last week. “We don’t contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no,” Kerry said, but he stressed the president had the right to take action “no matter what Congress does” [bold mine-DL].

Many on both sides of the Syria debate have been puzzled by Obama’s reportedly “last-minute” decision to go to Congress. Hawks share Obama’s mistaken view that he doesn’t need Congressional authorization, so most of them don’t understand what he’s doing. Opponents of attacking Syria are pleased with the delay and the decision to have Congress vote on the issue, and some hope that this is Obama’s way of escaping from the ridiculous position he created for himself, but the decision seems very strange because Obama thinks he doesn’t need Congressional approval. In fact, what seems to be happening is that Obama is just pausing on launching the strikes until after Congress votes, and then will proceed with them regardless of the outcome of the vote. As far as the administration is concerned, Congressional approval offers some political cover, but Congress is viewed as little more than a rubber-stamp legislature on these matters whose views can be discarded when inconvenient.

Hide 38 comments

38 Responses to The Resolution on Syria Is Very Broad, Likely Won’t Pass In Current Form

The assumption of bad faith seems to be the animating principle behind opposition to strikes in Syria and if someone doesn’t share that assumption it makes the arguments tough to follow. Is it not a possibility that the President is trumpeting his independence as a way to influence legislators?

“In fact, what seems to be happening is that Obama is just pausing on launching the strikes until after Congress votes, and then will proceed with them regardless of the outcome of the vote.”

It also buys more time for planning and retasking forces committed elsewhere. The Nimitz is in the Red Sea, for example, and it wasn’t on a holiday cruise. Any strike will be under a global microscope, and he can’t risk a sloppy, Clinton-style fireworks display.

I agree with Mohamed. The majority of Republicans will vote with Obama because their neocon patrons are lusting for a chance to provoke a wider war, to include Iran. Unfortunately, enough Democrats will go along in order to spare Obama an embarrassing loss.

I think Chad is on to something. The commenters seem to be evenly divided between those who think Obama is an evil, calculating, Machiavellian mastermind, and those who think he’s an empty suit. Those would seem to be mutually exclusive, unless you think he’s an evil, calculating, Machiavellian empty suit.

Certainly would be a strange decision to send authorization to congress, ignore congress, then ruin your presidential reputation on a military action with limited domestic support.

I can’t fathom why the Prez thinks this intervention would be a good idea.

Trying to save face? Trying to project an image to Israel and the Arabs? Trying to make Asad nervous about using weapons again? Thinks it would be a legitimately limited intervention without blowback? Thinks it would be a worthwhile counter move against Iran in the region?

There’s reasons it could be a good idea I guess, I just don’t think any would be pass muster.

I agree with Sheldon. I just don’t think the stakes are high enough for Obama to go ahead with strikes if Congress says ‘no,’ especially in conjunctions with the British ‘nay’ vote and the extremely heavy negative polling.

Lord knows there’s plenty enough reason to be cynical about our dysfunctional political scene, but I find it hard to see what’s in it for Obama to go ahead on this without any support at all. It just seems reckless — and he doesn’t do reckless.

Sure, he says he can go ahead without Congress’ OK, but he doesn’t say he will. I actually think this Congressional vote will be very meaningful.

It’s nice that John Kerry is thinking of his old friends at Raytheon, who make the Tomahawk cruise missle and could use a little publicity to help sales. To bad John had to divest his Raytheon stock when he became Secretary of State. I wonder if he was “paid” in stock for a Raytheon speaking engagment.

It looks like the whole thing is set up to fail. I think POTUS has figured out that,if Assad authorized the use of chemical weapons, it is because he wants a quickie attack from the US that would help him politically in the Arab world. He could paint all of his opposition as tools of the “Great Satan” and Zionism.

I think you’re wrong on this, as you were. On the Congressional vote issue. This is because, I surmise, you continue to read Obama incorrectly. (Not your fault; he is not an easy man to read.)

As a lawyer, and a constitutional lawyer, he knows the value of precedent. As the President, he knows the importance of protecting what he perceives to be the prerogatives of the Executive. In his case, the situation is compounded by the fact that Congressional Republicans are, objectively speaking, dysfunctional, and so it would be foolish of him to hamstring what he perceives to be the security policy of the United States in Congressional politicking.

And so he does what every good lawyer does, and what every government does: you preserve your right, you deny that you are creating precedent, and then you proceed to do the ‘right’ thing.

Should Congress vote no, he will assert, yet again, the prerogatives of the office, but will NOT act. He will then wait for the next chemical attack – and there will be a next, and one after that – and at that point he will wait for the Republicans to self-destruct, before going back for authorization – and getting it.

The idea seems to be to go ahead with the strikes unilaterally, but to make a putsch to get unlimited, irrevocable authority from Congress for all Presidential future warmaking, with these unitary war powers thereby transferred forever to the Executive outside any possible Congressional authority, accountability and oversight, forever and ever.

This is so much faux democracy – like “one man, one vote, once.”

It follows the well-worn historical path of elite power in republics eventually morphing into imperial elite despotism, essentially severed from a rule of law where there is none for the highest.

BTW, Jack Goldsmith has deleted my comment from his blog (about the last blog post Daniel cited), so anybody reading him should have that in mind.

What’s funny about his latest post is that the 9/11 AUMF could easily cover this:

“IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”

Claim that he has determined that there is secret intelligence linking Assad’s government with anybody from Al Qaida (or a group affiliated with Al Qaida, or somebody who drank coffee in the same coffee shop in which an Al Qaida supporter or sympathizer drank coffee…).

Claim that it’s for the prevention of future attacks.

There’s no way to refute it, even before ‘secret intelligence’ is invoked. Bush never got noticeable sh*t from Congress after the WMD’s and links to Al Qaida were never found in Iraq. Obama could just cite neocon BS about them being moved to Syria.

I guess that Goldsmith doesn’t want to admit that his work in producing the War (on Terror)President persisted even unto his political opponent’s term of office.

In that sense he’s much like the liar and torturer John Yoo, who castigated Clinton for exceeding presidential powers, claimed that Bush was not limited in presidential powers, and now claims that Obama is exceeding presidential powers.

I submit to you that the Sequester is what is causing the Administration to go to Congress for authorization, because there is not enough funding left in the current fiscal year defense budget to lob a few cruise missiles. It was worth being furloughed for this fiscal restraint of the Administration.

Certainly would be a strange decision to send authorization to congress, ignore congress, then ruin your presidential reputation on a military action with limited domestic support.

He wouldn’t be the first to so act. Consider Woodrow Wilson and the occupation of Veracruz.

If I were in Congress, I would never vote for a resolution that begins by repeating administration assertions that are completely unproven. If he wanted me to agree that Assad has used chemical weapons, he’d need to show me some evidence (and nothing from anyone called “Curveball”). As things stand now, Putin is making more sense than Obama. Then, if he managed to do that, he’d have to tell me why a person killed by sarin is somehow more dead than a person killed by bullets. Finally, he’d have to explain what it is he plans to do and how it would help matters and save, rather than cost, lives.

Obama is using a false flag attack to drum up support for an American bombardment of Syria. The Grandees of Western Capitalism no doubt have their reasons for wanting an end to Russian influence in Syria. But they have nothing to do with the well being of anybody anywhere other than themselves.

I suspect the truth has to do with pipe lines, OPEC and the petro dollar, and the franchise to supply Europe with natural gas.

Other people in other countries are killed, maimed, widowed, orphaned, impoverished and displaced by Imperial American aggression around the world. Our congress has indorsed these “policies” for decades. If they stop this particular action it will be for self serving reasons.

Still – I hope the congress will vote no. This would be a step in the right direction even if taken for the wrong reasons.

“The idea seems to be to go ahead with the strikes unilaterally, but to make a putsch to get unlimited, irrevocable authority from Congress for all Presidential future warmaking, with these unitary war powers thereby transferred forever to the Executive outside any possible Congressional authority, accountability and oversight, forever and ever.”

You are all overlooking an important thing. The House is absolutely itching to impeach Obama on any possible pretext they can find. They haven’t found it yet, but they are digging. He would be a fool to hand them a reason by directly going against their denial of authority to wage war in Syria.

Essayist-Lawyer says:
“You are all overlooking an important thing. The House is absolutely itching to impeach Obama on any possible pretext they can find. They haven’t found it yet, but they are digging. He would be a fool to hand them a reason by directly going against their denial of authority to wage war in Syria.”

If there is one thing for which a president will never be impeached, it’s war-making. That would threaten the very foundations of the National Security State.

Note that even back in the (pre-9/11!) 1990’s, the House didn’t mention Clinton waging war on his own as an article of impeachment.

Besides, they’ll have no shortage of pretexts to impeach him on; I’ve seen zero signs that they are constrained by reality.

Yellow Dog, I was struggling to put my thoughts about Obama into words, and then I read your post. Your words uncannily capture my thoughts exactly. I couldn’t have said it better myself even if I devoted a week to scribbling down my ideas. Bravo.

Such a wide range of guesswork, much of it mutually exclusive. I think the narrow reading is probably the safest one, but really, who knows but Obama?

I think he a) really does want to win this vote in order to “punish” Assad, it’s not some fake-out b) would not attack after losing a vote, which is really why he called one so he felt safe to proceed, and c) may end up with some face saving measure which doesn’t deepen US involvement in Syria’s war. The vote is genuinely important, and the wait ensures an actual debate, so for once thanks to Boehner and his lack of a unified caucus.

Unfortunately no one is likely to be pleased. That’s why this whole maneuvering looks so bad, but I don’t think it is formless. No one with an interest in an attack would be satisfied with a limited one, and everyone afraid Obama will attack regardless of a vote won’t give him credit if he doesn’t.

I agree the assertion he can attack anyway is scary, but it’s also what every Executive says.

Whatever the politics etc of the situation – I’d say from a more historical trend perspective – that we are showing what “The Crisis of the West” looks like in action – we no longer know who we are, what we believe in and no longer have the confidence to act on whatever it is we no longer believe in. The events in Syria are making it utterly clear that the rules based world order that North Americans and Europeans have worked to create since the end of WWII no longer is effective in dealing with the complexity of our world. Our international laws and institutions have failed.

So while we debate whether or not the President is an empty suit or an evil man – the entire Middle East is pushed to the edge of the abyss by severe water shortages/drought, overpopulation, corrupt and ineffective leadership, insufficient ability to grow enough food and a violent radical Islamist insurgency. And the West is utterly powerless to stop this catastrophe.

“. . . he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. . . . He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way. He makes crises, starts runs on banks, causes depressions, manufactures disasters, and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced. . . . he controls the press; he has unlimited funds; he has a new secret for influencing the mind . . . .”

Obama will be committing a crime against humanity if he chooses to attack (unprovoked) Syria without the support of his people and should be held accountable as such. The repercussions of such an egotistical, foolish choice could be absolutely devastating, especially to the people of the United States. He is putting the United States at risk of global retaliation and widespread bloodshed. If that isn’t a crime against humanity, I don’t know what is. I really had high hopes for Obama, that is what makes this whole thing so sad to me. I hope he will wake up and realize that a president is there to serve the people, not the other way around.

Icarusr: “And so he does what every good lawyer does, and what every government does: you preserve your right, you deny that you are creating precedent, and then you proceed to do the ‘right’ thing.

Should Congress vote no, he will assert, yet again, the prerogatives of the office, but will NOT act. He will then wait for the next chemical attack – and there will be a next, and one after that – and at that point he will wait for the Republicans to self-destruct, before going back for authorization – and getting it.”

Exactly. I was not a least bit surprised by Obama’s decision. He knows it’s a risky adventure, and one unlikely to benefit the US that much, and doesn’t want to be the only one who makes the decision. Moreover, it is clear to him that, due to the fact that large chunks of the country refuse to acknowledge his legitimacy, his actions will always be under more scrutiny than those of earlier Presidents.

Going to Congress is a win-win for him. If he gets the approval, he WILL bomb to protect the norms of the international law. If he doesn’t get it, he WILL NOT bomb, thus getting out of the obligation to punish the crossing of the “red line”. However, if the attacks continue, he will eventually get the Congressional support, and perhaps even that of his international detractors, such as Russia and China, who would in that case have harder time arguing for the US to stand down again.

“We don’t contemplate that the Congress is going to vote no,” Kerry said, but he stressed the president had the right to take action “no matter what Congress does” [bold mine-DL].

The President may do whatever he wants until he is impeached and removed from office. Wasn’t that the lesson of Richard Nixon? But will his subordinates dare to buck Congress and follow his orders? Some of them may remember Adm. Poindexter and Col. North.

“Should Congress vote no, he will assert, yet again, the prerogatives of the office, but will NOT act. He will then wait for the next chemical attack – and there will be a next, and one after that – and at that point he will wait for the Republicans to self-destruct, before going back for authorization – and getting it.”

If Congress refuses to authorize an attack on Syria, and absent a Security Council resolution to that effect, there would no basis in international law to legitimate it, it will not be on the basis of doubts as to who is responsible for poison gas attacks there and how many times they repeat it. It will be on the basis that the national security of the United States is not implicated and therefore it is not our place to take military action. If neighboring countries believe their security is threatened, say Turkey or Israel, they may take action, with or without our blessing or that of the U.N. Israel has already attacked Syria twice trying to keep chemical weapons out of the “wrong hands”. But anyone who takes it upon themselves to attack Syria and risks precipitating the sudden fall of the Assad government, as many desire, will have to deal with the consequences, and will be held responsible for them.

I’ve yet to read a persuasive reason why Obama would want to bomb Syria as part of some broader objective. Therefore I’m prepared to take him at his word on this, and believe his only motive is to deter the use of chemical weapons. That’s not to say Congress should not reject his request – I believe it should – but I don’t really see any devious hidden motives in this exercise. Sometimes it is easy to make things more complicated than they really are.

“that we are showing what “The Crisis of the West” looks like in action – we no longer know who we are, what we believe in and no longer have the confidence to act on whatever it is we no longer believe in. ”

The US and allies not engaging in any little war of choice that the neocons want is not a ‘crisis’; if anything it’s a good thing.

When Rs fought against Immigration Reform (or the Hagel nomination), we have heard that Obama goal was not the passage of Immigration but to split the Republican party. For the most part, I tended to ignore these as partitian talking points as the Republicans really did not want Immigration but did not want to vote against it.

I starting to believe Obama is actually hoping the Syria is lost to get him out of this situation.